Theseus General Introduction€¦ · use/development and healthy coastal habitats as ... THESEUS Project Presentation – FEEM Meeting, Venice, November 28th-29th, 2013 Part 3: Identity

1

Innovative technologies for safer European coasts in a changing climate

Description of EU FP7 Theseus project and Description of EU FP7 Theseus project and

contributions of society and economy tocontributions of society and economy tocontributions of society and economy to contributions of society and economy to

mitigation of coastal flooding risksmitigation of coastal flooding risks

Barbara ZanuttighAlma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna

Thesus Project Coordinator

Jean – Paul VanderlinenUniversité de Versailles St‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines

Theseus WP4 Leader

Phoebe KoundouriAthens University of Economics & Business

LSERESEES Director

Presenter: Vassilis SkianisRESEES Research Fellow

Innovative technologies for safer European coasts in a changing climate

Theseus General IntroductionTheseus General Introduction

Barbara Zanuttigh

2

THESEUS Project Presentation – FEEM Meeting, Venice, November 28th-29th, 2013

• Title: Innovative coastal technologies for safer European coasts in a changing climate

THESEUS at a glanceTHESEUS at a glance

• Instrument: Large Integrated Project ‐ FP7

• Total Cost: 8.519.726 €, EC Contribution: 6.530.000 €

• Duration: 48 months, 01/12/2009 ‐ 30/11/2013

• Consortium: 31 partners from 18 countries

P j C di B b Z i h Al• Project Coordinator: Barbara Zanuttigh, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna (Italy)

• Project Web Site: http://www.theseusproject.eu

• Key Words: coast, flood, erosion, risk, technology, mitigation, adaptation, climate change


THESEUS team members (31 partners)THESEUS team members (31 partners)

3


• deliver a safe (or low‐risk) coast for human use/development and healthy coastal habitats as

THESEUS THESEUS AimAim

/ p ysea levels rise and climate changes and the European economy continues to grow.


Learning from Learning from experienceexperience

Santander, 2010, «Santander, 2010, «BeckyBecky»»

Varna, 2010Varna, 2010

Gironde, 2010, «Gironde, 2010, «XynthiaXynthia» »

4


The The conceptualconceptual frameworkframework: SPRC model: SPRC model

Picture by courtesy of XtremRisk project


• Coastal engineering

• Socio‐Economy

THESEUS THESEUS technologiestechnologies

Socio Economy

• Ecology

5


Strategic Strategic disseminationdissemination

Guidelines Scientists

Decision support system tool

Policy briefs

Managers

Policy makers

Webinars & Multimedia material

Informative booklets

Policy makers

Public


• THESEUS Decision Support Systemhttp://www theseusproject eu/outreach/produ

THESEUS THESEUS mainmain productsproducts

http://www.theseusproject.eu/outreach/products

• THESEUS Special Issue «Coasts@risks» to be published by Coastal Engineering (up to 18 papers), Elsevier, 2014

• THESEUS monograps «Coastal risk assessment d iti ti i h i li t t band mitigation in a changing climate» to be

published by Elsevier, 2014

6


• A holistic conceptual model for flood risk should be used; this will allow

THESEUS and the FLOOD directiveTHESEUS and the FLOOD directiveArt. 4 and 6Art. 4 and 6

be used; this will allow

– for the identification of the connections among river basins and sea;

– for a wide range of management and maintenance options to be considered;

– for the identification of areas where further, or more detailed, investigations are required;, g q ;

– to promote communication and understanding of flood risk.

• The inclusion of social and ecological aspects into flood risk mapping is essential to understand risk including the options for mitigation.


• Flood hazard and risk maps

of the current situation are essential as these


– of the current situation are essential, as these provide a benchmark against which future risk levels can be assessed.

– to assist in short‐term decision‐making, long‐term flood risk assessments should be prepared to identify potential impacts.

• Probabilistic approaches are a good method for pp gpresenting hazard/risk in an understandable way. Considering a full range of future scenarios also allows uncertainty in both the projection of climate conditions and modelling techniques to be addressed.

7


• Flood risk strategies need to be developed over the long term


the long term

– to include factors such as climate change, especially sea‐level rise and rising coastal development;

– financial and management commitment to selected strategies is required beyond typical decision timescales e.g. political.

• A network/group of all those with responsibilitiesA network/group of all those with responsibilities in the flood prone area should be established identifying

– where responsibilities lie within the group;

– differences in flood risk understanding and perception


• THESEUS GIS‐based tool – operates at high spatial resolution allowing

• to rapidly assess local risk level

The Decision Support SystemThe Decision Support System

• to rapidly assess local risk level,

• to identify mitigations and related reduced impacts.

– was developed accounted for

• heterogeneity

• robustness

• performance.

– represents in a simplified (linear model) way

• interdependence of mitigation options

• different scales of vulnerability.

– does not represents resilience in time, i.e.

• changes of social cohesion or resilience,

• transformation of habitats and species,

• breaching processes.

8

THESEUS Final Event – Brussels, October 18th 2013

The The DecisionDecision SupportSupport SystemSystem


MapMap ViewerViewer

9


Data: Data: dtmdtm modelmodel


Data: Data: populationpopulation

10


Data: Data: landland useuse


Data: Data: criticalcritical facilitiesfacilities

WT 1.7

11


Data: Data: habitatshabitats


• Hydraulic vulnerability map

– Flood depth (site‐specific thresholds)

VulnerabilityVulnerability mapsmaps

– Flood duration (site‐specific thresholds)

– Flood velocity (site‐specific thresholds)

• Ecological vulnerability map: EVI

• Social vulnerability map

– Life losses (,based on % of total population)

C iti l f iliti l (b d lit t )– Critical facilities losses (based on literature)

• Economic vulnerability map

– Loss of goods and properties, business disruption (based on % of total damage)

– Beach loss (based on % of total beach loss)

12


• Combination through multi‐criteria analysis

Ecological vulnerability map

Risk mapRisk map

– Ecological vulnerability map

– Social vulnerability map

– Economic vulnerability map

• Equal weights

• Weights based on the site specific surveys with stakeholders

• Weights decided by the user


• Priorities associated to injuries and social, environmental and economic damages

Stakeholder Stakeholder perceptionperception of of damagesdamages

g

13


Resilient societies and Resilient societies and economies: economies:

Integration, innovation and identityIntegration, innovation and identity

Jean‐Paul Vanderlinden


• Renovating the way we approach the governance dimension of flood and erosion risk in a way that:

The challenge at handThe challenge at hand

– Integrates vulnerability reduction and resilience

build‐up

– Integrates structural and non structural considerations

– Integrates the multiple dimensions of working at the development of carefully contextualized DSS.

• This by fostering innovation:

– At the risk assessment stage

– In terms of risk mitigation

• While taking into account the diverse coastal identities

14


Part 1: IntegrationsPart 1: Integrations‐ Vulnerability reduction and resilience build‐up

‐ Structural and non structural considerations

‐Multiple dimensions of working at the development of carefully contextualized DSS


• The vulnerability and resilience approaches are complementary

Integrating vulnerability reduction Integrating vulnerability reduction and resilience build upand resilience build up

complementary

– Yet one approach may hinder the other.

– Developing an action centred framework that simultaneously allows to take into account progresses in vulnerability reduction and in resilience enhancement

• Working explicitly on associated paradigmaticWorking explicitly on associated paradigmatic tensions.

First overarching result!First overarching result!

15


• While conducting field work it became clear that structural measures for risk mitigation were

Integrating structural and non Integrating structural and non structural considerationsstructural considerations

structural measures for risk mitigation were dependent upon non structural contexts:

– Definition of responsibilities

– Cross influences of structural and non structural measure mediated by behaviours

– Misunderstanding of the process that led to the choice of an optionchoice of an option

• In one word: governance!

Second overarching result!Second overarching result!


• Devising and ground truthing communication schemes

Integrating the multiple dimension Integrating the multiple dimension of a carefully contextualized DSSof a carefully contextualized DSS

schemes

- rooting risk communication into paradigmatic tensions, creating a dialogic space;

- dovetailing with DSS make it possible to take into account all the determinants of risk perceptions.‐ DSS not only do support decision but may support informed deliberations

Third overarching result!Third overarching result!

16


Part 2: InnovationsPart 2: Innovations

‐ Assessment

‐Mitigation


• Perception analysis

– Stakeholders do have their priorities in this order:

Assessment phaseAssessment phase

consequences, receptor, pathway, source, uncertainty.

– Stakeholder will not separate their analysis of the risk under scrutiny from the envisioned, even imaginary, mitigation options

– Normative issues are the principal determinants of fl d d i i k tiflood and erosion risk perceptions.

17


• Insurance– development of simplified insurance model with spillover boxes

Mitigation options (1)Mitigation options (1)

– rethinking scales and linkages, going beyond the private/public dichotomy

– communicating resilience to insurance decision makers (public/private) as a business relevant information

• Spatial planning– building within the planning system the ability to “multi source” learn

from shocks – real AND scenarized

– land use planning taking into account the ecological functional values of (fromWP3) and the economic shadow value (from WP1).


• Business continuity planning– Getting business continuity planning to become a locally led and

f ili d d i il bl ll b i dl f l

Mitigation options (2)Mitigation options (2)

facilitated dynamic available to all businesses regardless of scale.

– Business Continuity Plans explicitly designed to feed insurance schemes, land use planning and post-flood recovery

• Evacuation planning– evacuation software made available for local government with the data

requirements AND data collection and use procedures clearly spelled out.

18


Part 3: IdentityPart 3: Identity

Part 3: IdentityPart 3: Identity

‐ Collective memory and identity

‐ Fieldwork protocols respectful of the diverse identities that make up the social and economic fabric of European p p

Coasts.

‐ Develop a scientific community that has now a shared THESEUS identity.


• Athens University of Economics and Business– Phoebe Koundouri, Mavra Stithou, Osiel Davila, Kiriaki Raimundu

Middl fl d h d h C t

The team of social scientistsThe team of social scientists

• Middlesex flood hazard research Center– Loraine McFadden, Tracey Coates, Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Denis Parker.

• Bologna University– Fabio Zagonari, Luca Pietrantoni, Gianluca Pescaroli

• Santander University– Pedro Diaz Simal

• CETMEF– François Hissel

• Latvia University– Raimonds Ernstein

• IMGW– Jacek Lendzion

• Université de Versailles Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines– Benedicte Rulleau, Juan Baztan, Nabil Touile, Idrissa Kane, Jean-Paul Vanderlinden

19


Santander Case Study Example

Valuing Climate Change Mitigation in

Coastal and Marine ecosystems in the short, medium and long‐run

Paper by: Pedro Diaz, Phoebe Koundouri, Benedique Rulleau,

Kyriaki Remoundou

Journal of Ecosystem Services, forthcoming


Paper Aim

• To contribute to the limited literature of monetary

To contribute to the limited literature of monetary valuation of the effects of natural hazards caused by CC.

• In particular, we elicit the WTP for avoiding relevant environmental and health risks in coastal areas. A choice experiment (CE) is implemented in Santanderchoice experiment (CE) is implemented in Santander, Northern Spain, a coastal region that faces a number of significant challenges due to CC (Losada et al., 2012).

20


Santander Case Study

Bay of Santander in 1997 (source: NASA)


Santander Case Study

S d i h i l i f h R i f C b i

• Santander is the capital city of the Region of Cantabria, Northern Spain. Its Bay is the largest estuary on the North coast of Spain with an extension of 22.42 km², 9 kilometres long and 5 kilometres wide.

• Santander beaches are one of the most valuable natural assets in Cantabria. It is characterized by pocket beaches and small inlets isolated between rocky headlands. These beaches have an important role as focal locations for social and touristic activities.

21


Santander Choice Experiment

• We emplo a CE to al e the effects of CC on the coastal

• We employ a CE to value the effects of CC on the coastal ecosystem. We follow a split‐sample approach and elicit the value people place on improvements in biodiversity and recreational opportunities and decreases in the health risks associated with the presence of jellyfish in the short (5 years), medium (30 years) and long run (60 years).

• Data collected by a quantitative survey conducted in the Spring of 2011. In total, we interviewed 300 people over 18 years old and ended up with 266 complete questionnaires used in the econometric analysis.


Santander Choice ExperimentExample of a choice card for the 5-year version

Attributes Option A Option BOption C (no policy

action)

Biodiversity Medium High Low

Number of days beaches are closed due to jellyfish outbreaks

5 15 15

Beach Size High Low Low

Additional annual cost to your household for the next 5 years

125 50 0

I prefer

22


Key Findings

• Results suggest that people value positively benefits in terms of increased biodiversity and

benefits in terms of increased biodiversity and recreation opportunities in all the considered time frames.

• On the other hand people do not seem to be willing to pay to hedge against health risks relating to the presence of jellyfish in the long‐run.


Key Findings

• Present value of future biodiversity and recreation related benefits increases with the

recreation related benefits increases with the time frame. Therefore results under this study provide evidence of the presence of a strong non‐use component in the total economic value of biodiversity and recreation. This could relate to the presence of bequest values and/or option values associated with the possibility of derivingvalues associated with the possibility of deriving benefits in the future.

23


THANK YOU!Barbara Zanuttigh

b b tti h@ ib it

[email protected]

Jean – Paul Vanderlinenjean‐[email protected]

Phoebe [email protected]

Vassilis [email protected]

Documents

Theseus General Introduction€¦ · use/development and healthy coastal habitats as ... THESEUS Project Presentation – FEEM Meeting, Venice, November 28th-29th, 2013 Part 3: Identity